DomR - Domain Report

10 US Laws Every Domainer Needs to Know

http://www.avivadirectory.com/domain-law/

Return of hijacked Direction.com

Respondent had hijacked the domain name Direction.com and transferred it to a different registrar without any authorization from Complainant. The new registrar, Tucows, was "reluctant to transfer the Domain Name back to 000domains.com [the registrar of Complainant] because, in accordance with ICANN policies, the transfer was approved by the Domain Name’s administrative contact at the time (Respondent)". Fortunately Complainant had a valid (Danish) trademark for DIRECTION, so Direction.com could be (and was) transferred back to Complainant through this dispute.

Link: WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2007-0605

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

650,000 Dollars.com

Virtual Network SA from Switzerland recently bought the domain name dollars.com for $650,000. They plan to use the domain name to launch a new community-based website for investors.

Links:
- Marketplace: Internet real estate is booming
- Nom de Domaine: Dollars.com rentre en Europe pour de nouvelles aventures….américaines [FR]

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

promoconcert.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0577.html

The domain name promoconcert.com was transferred to Promoconcert, S.L. of Barcelona, Spain -- the holder of the Spanish trademark PROMOCONCERT. The Respondent did not prove that it had rights or legitimate interests in that name, because he did not respond: "In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name."

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

onthego.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1060.html

The domain name onthego.com was not transferred to Complainant, On The Go Technologies Group / On the Go Healthcare Inc.. [who on their website call themselves "OTG Technologies"]

Respondent -- ONTHEGO Internet Solutions Inc. -- has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

Although the domain name onthego.com was registered many years before Complainant's trademark and even prior to the incorporation of Complainant’s parent company, the Panel -- strangely enough -- did not make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

whatswhat.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1216.html

The domain name whatswhat.com was not transferred to Aerogroup International, Inc. -- owner of trademarks for What's What for shoes.

"The Panel finds that the mark WHAT’S WHAT is also a common English phrase meaning “the true facts or actual situation” [...] and that Complainant cannot monopolize the use of the common English phrase simply by virtue of registering it as a trademark."

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

wwf.com

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

The domain name wwf.com was not transferred to WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International.

wwf.com was previously owned by the World Wrestling Federation, which since 2002 -- after a lawsuit from WWF -- is called World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). Part of the Court’s order was to either transfer or cancel the domain name. WWE cancelled the domain name and it became available for registration. Unfortunately for WWF they were not quick enough to register the domain name and somebody else beat them to it. Respondent acquired wwf.com in January 2003 for $10,000 and has used the domain name for a Web Wrestling Forum for a few years. Now the domain name is parked.

The Panel found that WWF failed to prove a bad faith registration:
"The fact that [wwf.com] was on the market and not transferred to [WWF] was an indication to the Respondent (and anyone else) that [wwf.com] had not been part of any order made in the litigation. One could not expect the media to carry, or the Respondent to know, the minute detail of the Court’s order.

Bad faith at registration against [WWE] cannot be inferred as bad faith against [WWF]. There is probably not bad faith against [WWE] if that body elected to release [wwf.com] on to the market.

The interval between the Domain Name registration in January 2003 and the appearance of wild-life etc. links on the website some time after April 2005 is just too long to justify an inference of bad faith registration at the time of registration."

Original post blogged on b2evolution.

ariel.ch

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/dch2006-0012.html

The domain name ariel.ch was transferred to Procter and Gamble, producer of the Ariel laundry detergent and holder of the "Ariel" trademark.

The Respondent, whose first name is Ariel, did not submit a response. The Panel found that "the interest of a multinational group such as Procter & Gamble, which owns and has been extensively using in Switzerland the “ARIEL” trademark for decades, is higher than the interest of the Respondent who has registered his first name as a domain name, but who has not used the said domain name for a website in five years and who has not taken position in the present proceedings."

In 1999 a judge found that the domain name ariel.nl did not have to be transferred to P&G. [Article in Dutch about ariel.nl]

Original post blogged on b2evolution.